But there is another interesting angle to Holder’s decision to block Voter ID – it could easily backfire. For he is not only going against past Supreme Court precedents as well as past Justice Department actions . . .

But the Justice position is a lead zeppelin, contradicting both the Supreme Court and the Department's own precedent. In 2005, Justice approved a Georgia law with the same provisions and protections of the one Mr. Holder nixed for South Carolina. In 2008, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board that an Indiana law requiring photo ID did not present an undue burden on voters.

. . . he is also practically inviting the Supreme Court to strike down Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. The Court has made some past noises questioning that section which allows the Justice Department to harass states and localities in the egregious fashion it is so doing now. Holder’s conduct presents a good case for finally doing away with Section 5.

Thursday, December 29, 2011

Between hosting two Christmas parties and recovering from the same, I have fallen behind on a number of tasks. Regrettably among them is viewing The Queen’s Christmas Broadcast, which I did not get around to doing until this morning. I know. Terrible.

But what a magnificent message it is! Her Majesty did not give in to the world’s pressure to secularize or water down Christmas, but forthrightly and winsomely proclaimed the core message of the birth of our Lord.

And I agree with Cranmer that her brief speech greatly outshone the Christmas missives of the Archbishops of Canterbury and Westminster. Do not even get me started on ++Vincent Nichols’ message. Christmas is about trashing Israel’s effort to defend herself?

I was glad to see Nichols ascend to his see, but I am sorely disappointed in him.

Tuesday, December 27, 2011

The Episcopal Church of the Sudan (ECS) has not only recognized The Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) as the legitimate expression of Anglicanism in the United States instead of The Episcopal “Church” (TEC), but has also explicitly dis-invited TEC Presiding “Bishop” Schori from visiting the Sudan church.

Given the financial help The Episcopal Church has given ECS in the past, this is a principled and courageous act. A few commenters at the above link think this will not affect future financial assistance from TEC, but I very much doubt that.

Our prayers and our help for The Episcopal Church of the Sudan are in order, for this matter and for the severe hardships all Christians are suffering in the Sudan and South Sudan.

One mark of the totalitarian impulse is that everything is about The Dear Leader, whoever he may be at the time. A case in point – the Obama campaign is urging his followers to propagandize their families for Christmas. I am not kidding.

I can think of few things which would better promote family disharmony at Christmas. (But then totalitarians and assorted Leftists do constantly work to undermine the family and Christmas for that matter.) Whatever one’s political leanings, propagandizing your family at Christmas is a bad, bad idea. I know. I am just about the only conservative left in my admittedly small family. My hippie dad and I used to get into some heated arguments. And he used to give me gifts such as an Al Franken book.

We are both wiser now and keep our political discussions in small, infrequent, and careful doses. And when I call him today, I will not berate him for voting for Obama or for being likely to do so again.

Besides, Christmas is not about politics or someone’s Dear Leader. It is about the Lord of Lords and King of Kings humbling himself to be born into our messed up world for our sake and for our salvation.

The Obama campaign clearly does not get that.

Let us be more wise. Let us celebrate the birth of our Savior and love our family and friends . . . whatever their politics. Even if we are engaged in political warfare, we can follow the good example of the Christmas Truce and let our warfare cease for a time in honor of the Prince of Peace.

Tuesday, December 20, 2011

I am not yet sure exactly what to think of all this – one reason I haven’t posted on the subject. But Archbishop Duncan has issued a plain spoken letter tonight on the current AMiA situation and ACNA’s response:

20th December, A.D. 2011 Eve of St. Thomas the Apostle

TO ALL THE PEOPLE OF THE ANGLICAN CHURCH IN NORTH AMERICA:

Dearest Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

Recent events within the Anglican Mission in the Americas have challenged us all. This letter is a brief report to you all about those events and about our efforts to find a path forward. The present reality is brokenness. The vision, however, that governs our fledgling Province remains unchanged: a Biblical, missionary and united Anglicanism in North America.

The resignation of nine Anglican Mission bishops, including the Bishop Chairman, from the House of Bishops of Rwanda, changed relationships with Rwanda, with fellow bishops and with the Anglican Church in North America. The resigned bishops lost their status in our College of Bishops as a result of their resignation from Rwanda. The Anglican Mission also lost its status as a Ministry Partner, since that status had been predicated on AMiA’s relationship with Rwanda. In addition, confusion and hurt has been created in Rwanda and in North America, and there is much serious work ahead of us.

Representatives of the Anglican Church in North America and of the Pawleys Island leadership met today in Pittsburgh. For the Anglican Church in North America the starting point was the importance of our Provincial relationship with the Province of Rwanda (a sister GAFCON Province) and with His Grace Archbishop Onesphore Rwaje, of our relationship with the North American Bishops Terrell Glenn and Thad Barnum and all the clergy licensed in Rwanda, and of our relationship to those represented by the Pawleys Island group with whom we were meeting. We, as the Anglican Church in North America, have been deeply connected to all three, and we can only move forward when issues and relationships have been adequately addressed and necessary transitions are in progress.

The agreement from today’s meeting in Pittsburgh was that the Anglican Church in North America is prepared to enter into a process by which our relationship with those who will rally to the Pawleys’ vision and leadership (Anglican Mission in the Americas, Inc.) might be restored to a status like the one existing before the Ministry Partner decision of 2010. All those at the meeting today agreed “that there were no subjects that were not on the table.” For the Anglican Church in North America, these subjects must include leadership, relationships, and jurisdictional participation in a way that is fully Anglican.

We made a partial beginning. Bishops Leonard Riches and Charlie Masters agreed to lead the negotiations from the Anglican Church in North America. Bishops Doc Loomis and TJ Johnston will lead from the AMiA side. There is much about what has happened that will have to be faced. The other part of this beginning will be to come alongside P.E.A.R. and their designated bishops (Barnum and Glenn), clergy, people and parishes in North America as they discern their next steps. The good news is that we know a God who has called us and who is able. [I Thess. 5:24] We are sure that He wants all the pieces back together in an ever-more dynamic, ever-more-submitted, ever-more transformed and transforming North American Church. [John 17]

Keep praying. With God nothing shall be impossible. [Luke 1:37] And besides that, He works all things together for good for those who love Him, who are called according to His purpose. [Rom. 8:28] Blessed Christmas!

Faithfully in Christ, +Robert PittsburghArchbishop and Primate Anglican Church in North America

Oh. So people like me aren’t upset with Eric Holder and the Obama regime about Fast and Furious because of funneling guns to Mexican drug cartels, losing track of them, subsequent crimes with the guns, including the murder of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry and many others, of the cover-ups, etc, etc. We are upset because Holder and Obama are black. Yes, that explains everything.

“I think this is absolutely the last card in the deck, and that shows how weak their ground is,” West said in a phone interview. “But, what that means is they want to make white individuals afraid of continuing to put the pressure on Eric Holder because they don’t want to be seen as racist, and that is something that we have got to move beyond.”

West said Holder can’t logically assign race as a motivation behind the criticisms for his handling of Operation Fast and Furious. “What Fast and Furious has to do with is misleading the Congress and the American people about what you knew about this program, and if you did not know anything about this program, then who’s in charge of the Department of Justice?” West said. “It has nothing to do with your race — it has everything to do with competence, with your character and with your ability to lead the Department of Justice.”

West said Holder’s use of race as a way to attack his critics is “the most insidious thing I ever heard.”

But what should we expect from Holder and the Obama regime? After all, the Dear Leader Himself has been known to play the race card.

Monday, December 19, 2011

There has been not a little unhappiness among conservatives about Newt Gingrich’s recent statements about holding federal judges accountable. Hot Air even dubbed it “Newt’s war on the courts”.

However, I am not among those who are unhappy. Although I, too, may disagree with details of what Gingrich has said on the subject, I am actually heartened by his boldness.

For the problem in recent decades has not been Presidents and Congresses confronting the Judiciary, but the unwillingness of Presidents and Congresses to do so. Federal judges have again and again disregarded and undermined the Constitution with impunity. And the other branches of the federal government have done next to nothing.

That is not the way constitutional government should work.

Under our Constitution, the three branches of the federal government are to check and balance each other. And the Executive branch has done that to Congress, and the Congress to the Executive, and the Judiciary to both.

But who has checked the Judiciary and kept it in balance? Federal judges have acted like dictators in black robes, even nullifying elections without Constitutional backing, and have not been held accountable at all.

There are constitutional means for Presidents and Congresses, as well as Governors, to put rogue federal judges in their places. But they rarely, if ever, do so even when outrageous rulings cry out for it.

So when a candidate expresses the willingness to actually defend our Constitution against judges who care not a wit for it, I am that much more inclined to support said candidate. When one branch goes rogue and disregards and even attacks our Constitution, it is the sworn duty of other branches to defend the Constitution.

Now, can this be taken too far? Can one branch so suppress the power of another branch that it is dangerous and unconstitutional? Can checking the power of federal judges go too far? Yes, and FDR, for one, did take things too far.

But since FDR, that has rarely if ever been the problem. The problem has been federal judges who tear down the rightful power of the other branches, of the states, and of the people, and have disregarded the Constitution without let or hindrance. And the future of our constitutional republic demands that such judicial arrogance be put in its place.

Good on Newt Gingrich for the courage to express the willingness to do so.

Friday, December 16, 2011

You may have noticed I can be slightly vehement about the enormities of the Left. And I am certainly no fan of the aggressive New Atheism.

So it may surprise that I have long been a fan of Christopher Hitchens.

Through the years, I have gotten so weary of the idiocy emanating from the Left that I find it refreshing when I come across those left of center, even far left of center, who can actually think for themselves and communicate well.

Christopher Hitchens was such a man. I’ve always enjoyed listening to him because he has always been unpredictable, witty, and sharp . . . and unafraid, particularly unafraid to offend the kneejerk Left, but just about everyone else for that matter. He relished going against the grain and did not seem to care who was annoyed by that.

Was much of what he said outrageous? Oh, yes! But he was outrageous because he was unafraid to think independently and to speak and write clearly and intelligently with his unique biting wit. Even when his conclusions were utterly wrong, he came to them in a right way worthy of respect and attention.

LBJ got elected to the Senate due to ballot stuffing in Duval County. So his library is the perfect venue for Holder’s speech.

Like all good Democrats, Holder sticks his head in the sand concerning election fraud.

[Holder] said there is widespread agreement that in-person voting fraud -- the chief target of the new laws -- "is uncommon."

Well, maybe most voters are not ineligible felons or illegal aliens or voting multiple times or had their votes bought etc. etc., but somehow enough of them are to help Democrats win in close races. But it’s “uncommon.” No problem here!

But Voter ID laws to make vote fraud even less common, why we can’t have that. That’s vote fraud suppression, I mean, “voter suppression.”

And we must make sure the right people are elected.

Holder reiterated the department's assertion that Texas "has failed to show the absence of discrimination" by not drawing new congressional districts that would strengthen the voting power of Hispanics, who fueled much of the state's population growth over the past decade.

So the Texas congressional delegation must elect Democrats through gerrymandered districts based on race. Never mind that Texas is an overwhelmingly Republican state. Only groups favored by Democrats have “voting rights”, not those racist Republicans.

As if that is not enough, this gem came up after the speech:

In a question-and-answer session with library Director Mark Updegrove, after his 30-minute address, Holder said that after taking office, he chose to reinvigorate the department's Civil Rights Division because he felt the unit had "lost its way."

In other words, the Civil Rights Division was not as Leftist and devoted to rigging elections as Holder wanted. So he hired some real winners. Hire after hire are Leftists with a record of opposing efforts to prevent vote fraud. Some even oppose felon disenfranchisement laws.

Again, Holder’s (and Obama’s) determination to support election rigging and fraud is in the spirit of that greeeeat man, Lyndon Baines Johnson. The LBJ Library was indeed the perfect venue for yesterday’s speech.

Monday, December 12, 2011

My post title may seem overwrought. But I think Occupy has now shown that their target is not just "the 1%" and economic inequality, but the United States itself. They are now going beyond class warfare – as if that is not bad enough – to war against the whole American economy. For this morning, they intend to blockade ports throughout the U. S. West Coast.

Whatever their explanations and idiocies, this is nothing less than an attack on the economy of the United States.

Friday, December 09, 2011

So this is what “voting rights” has come to – the right to rig elections to get the results you want, whether by arbitrary law or by outright lawlessness, namely election fraud. The NAACP is letting their self-righteous cover of their efforts to rig democracy slip with their petition to the UN alleging disenfranchisement of Blacks and Hispanics.

For about what is the NAACP really whining to the UN? Efforts to ensure votes are legit and not fraudulent. Prominent in the NAACP complaint are Voter ID laws and laws to keep ineligible felons from voting. Trying to make sure only eligible people vote is racist, don’t you know.

By way, does the NAACP really want to argue that keeping felons from voting is an anti-Black measure?

Another NAACP complaint is even more . . . interesting. They cite Georgia shortening its early voting period from 45 days to 21 days. Only 21 days to early vote? That RAAAACCISSM!

The NAACP might want to think again about this. Their course of action is so obnoxious it just might backfire. As if race-baiting for vote fraud in front of the UN isn’t bad enough, they might (and I am not yet certain of this) petition the UN Human Rights Council:

What better forum for the NAACP to use to berate and try to embarrass the United States than the dysfunctional United Nations Human Rights Council, where 57.45% of the members are rated “Not Free” or only “Partly Free” by Freedom House?

We don’t have to imagine what this travesty of an international “human rights” organization will do with the report. Members with such stellar human rights records as Russia, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Cuba and China will have a field day trying to deflect attention from their own blatant denials of fundamental freedoms to their peoples by turning the United States into a racist oppressor.

Yeah, that would go over well in America.

May I humbly suggest the NAACP might be wiser to declare victory on voting rights (And they have won and then some.) and focus on voter responsibility. Blacks still have relatively low voter turnout, and when they do vote they often elect loons *coughsheilajacksonleecough* and crooks. And that hardly advances black people or anyone . . . except for race-baiting loons and crooks.

And enabling vote fraud hardly advances real voting rights and the consent of the governed.

Tuesday, December 06, 2011

With Obama striving to pin Congressional Republicans with a “do-nothing” label, it is time for a reality check.

I’ve posted on how Obama simply played politics with the Super Committee failure after doing almost nothing to prevent it. Now he is taking a similar tack with the payroll tax cut extension.

Republicans have made it clear they also want a payroll tax cut extension, but that it must be paid for, and it must not be an excuse to raise already high taxes on high income brackets.

So if Obama wants to extend the payroll tax cut, he would simply scale back a little of his trillions in new spending to pay for it. And a deal would be done tomorrow. But no, he instead demagogues and plays class warfare politics by pushing the very tax hikes Republicans have made clear are unacceptable. As with the Super Committee, it seems Obama really wants failure and inaction for his own political ends.

And this is indeed part of a pattern. Obama rushes to the podium at every opportunity to engage in class warfare as well as to pin a “do-nothing” label on Republicans. But the reality is he himself is pursuing a strategy of do-nothing to further this political strategy of failure.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) had emerged last year as a potentially fertile lobbying target for the administration when she touted her independence after losing the GOP primary to tea party Republican Joe Miller, whom she subsequently defeated as a write-in candidate in the general election. But Murkowski said that after a call congratulating her victory, little of substance has come from her spare dealings.

Murkowski said she did get a call from White House Chief of Staff William Daley asking about her vote on the Commerce secretary nomination. She also visited the Oval Office in February, according to news reports.

"I, too, kind of assumed there would be greater outreach there. But this administration is not known for reaching out on the legislative side," she said. "It's not just my observation. I talk with colleagues on the other side of the aisle who had expected perhaps a little more reach out because of the fact that the president used to serve with us in the Senate and the vice president used to serve with us here in the Senate."

Obama wooed Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) a lot early in his presidency, first to get her vote on the stimulus package and later seeking her vote for health care reform.

But he doesn't call anymore, and his team hasn't reached out much either, she said.

Snowe, who is up for re-election next year, said the Obama White House has the worst relationship with Congress of any of the six presidents with whom she's served.

"It's a dramatic difference. ... I don't expect the president every day to be calling me or somebody else. [But] I think what you do expect is to have a team that can work through the various issues ... and build a consensus," she said.

Snowe added, "I can understand him using the bully pulpit, you know, to enhance his position, but it can't be to the exclusion of ever working with the legislative branch."

Now Murkowski and Snowe are hardly conservative or rabidly anti-Obama. In fact, they greatly vex conservatives such as myself in part because they are most likely among “Republicans” to go along with Obama. They are logically among the first Obama would contact if he wants to get something done. So if they are among those pointing out that Obama makes little effort to work with Congress, that is saying something.

What we have here is a President who doesn’t really want to get anything done before the election, but instead wants inaction so he can use it to engage in political theater.

Thursday, December 01, 2011

The Archbishop of Canterbury has sent an Advent letter to the Primates of the Anglican Communion. There is much here, but I will focus on the following paragraph:

8. These questions are made all the more sharp by the fact that the repeated requests for moratoria on problematic actions issued by various representative Anglican bodies are increasingly ignored. Strong conscientious convictions are involved here. No-one, I believe, acts out of a desire to deepen disunity; some believe that certain matters are more important than what they think of as a superficial unity. But the effects are often to deepen mutual mistrust, and this must surely be bad for our mission together as Anglicans, and alongside other Christians as well. The question remains: if the moratoria are ignored and the Covenant suspected, what are the means by which we maintain some theological coherence as a Communion and some personal respect and understanding as a fellowship of people seeking to serve Christ? And we should bear in mind that our coherence as a Communion is also a significant concern in relation to other Christian bodies – especially at a moment when the renewed dialogues with Roman Catholics and Orthodox have begun with great enthusiasm and a very constructive spirit.

What stands out, nay, shouts to me is Dr. Williams' utter cluelessness as to what is needful for “personal respect”.

If one has children who willfully and brazenly disobey household rules, you may clearly warn them once before discipline, but then if the disobedience continues, you must impose discipline, not make more expressions of “concern.” Otherwise there will be rampant disrespect for you and for your rules – and disrespect not only from the disobedient children, but also from faithful children who see your spinelessness.

Rowan Williams not only has refused to discipline The Episcopal Church and other apostates, but also willfully undermined the Primates after they sought to do the job at Dar es Salaam. And he short-circuited Lambeth from doing the job by turning it into an Inbada. He is like an indulgent parent not only will not discipline, but who also deflects and undermines all efforts of schools, of churches, and even of law enforcement to bring his riotous brats in line. No one respects such a father, no matter how shiny his mitre.

And speaking of the Roman Catholics and Orthodox, they are just being polite in any so-called “renewed dialogues.” They know full well that Rowan Williams has turned the Anglican Communion into a playground for apostates and heretics. He has thereby shot ecumenical efforts with orthodox Christians to Hell.

Having lost the respect of the vast majority of orthodox Anglicans as well as a great many not-so-orthodox Anglicans by his fecklessness, the best thing Rowan Williams could do now for the Communion and for the whole catholic church is to repent and to resign.